Can there be anything more
frustrating than trying to engage in a substantive debate with a person whose
principle line of “argument” is sarcasm, deception and talking loud? And can
there be anything more hypocritical in this day and age to shield a presidential
wannabe from her character and ethical weaknesses by accusing her opponent of
gender “insensitive” gestures and tone? Poor pitiful Hillary Clinton, there on
stage in Flint, Michigan, expectorating lie after lie, deception after
deception, non-answer after non-answer—doing so in a “commanding” tone,
according to her completely biased media supporters—with the debate moderator
losing complete control of the proceedings to Clinton, pathetically “assuring” Bernie Sanders
that he would have a chance to “respond” to Clinton’s mudslide of pathology.
A day after the debate, Janell
Ross of the Washington Post called
Sanders “excuse me” moments when Clinton interrupted his answers, or wagging
his finger when trying to make a point, “sexist” and “chauvinistic.” Doesn’t he
“know” that media reporters are noting this “insensitive” behavior, and the “assumption”
is that the general public is also “put-off” by this “bullying” of a woman?
No, Clinton is her own problem,
and she discredits herself very well all by herself. In 1980, Bill Clinton lost
his first re-election bid for governor of Arkansas, partly because polling
showed a deep voter antipathy toward his wife. This couldn’t have been helped
by a 1979 local TV interview, meant as a “get to know Hillary” exchange. She
was wearing huge eye glasses and hideous-looking knee-high boots (apparently
because she was forced to wear a skirt for the appearance), and calling herself
Hillary Rodham. She came off as aloof and arrogant, completely the opposite of
her husband. She either had no clue how to connect with people—or more likely,
felt put-upon as someone of “patrician” stature being forced to stoop to the
level of the “plebians.”
Her lack of the “common touch”
with ordinary people has not improved since then; a New Hampshire news crew at
a rare Clinton joint appearance at an Iowa campaign rally showed Bill still
with the “touch,” easily engaging reporters, commenting on apple pie and how to
grow championship-size pumpkins—while Hillary continued to shun reporters and
their unscripted questions, was too patrician to comment on the pie and simply
walked away disinterestedly from the pumpkins. What is there to like about this
person? Why should we live in fear of what we say about her merely because she
is a woman, when we can see and hear with our own two eyes and ears who she is?
Thus the problem with Ross’ assessment
is that first it comes from a person who is yet another unabashed Clinton
enthusiast, so her credibility is already in question. Secondly, Clinton has
tried to play both sides of the fence, attempting to display “male” characteristics
when things are going good, then reverting to poor defenseless female when
things are going bad. Thirdly, Clinton’s gender is not a defense for her
numerous character and ethical defects, which non-Hillary fanatics grew as
frustrated to as Sanders did in the course of these debates. How is one
supposed to respond to it without being accused of “bullying” a female?
Thousands of comments on Ross’ piece showed that outside a smattering of
diehard self-deceiving Clintonphiles, there was near universal disagreement
with her assessment, an example of how out-of-touch the self-deceiving media is,
of gender politics gone out-of-control, and an utter failure to find fault with
Clinton on any point. When I pressed the Clinton fanatics to explain why a
person with such a long history of corruption, perjury and scandal ought even be
considered for the presidency, the responses (predictably) didn’t go much
beyond name-calling, accusations of woman-hating and claims that her crimes are all a “GOP
conspiracy,” despite the fact that pro-Clinton newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post were heavily involved in
exposing these activities. In order to “cleanse” Clinton of her many flaws of
character and principle, her supporters must follow her “example” and become
pathological liars as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment